A legal challenge to a backcountry user fee at Great Smoky Mountains National Park has failed, with a federal judge ruling the National Park Service was within its rights to levy the $4 per night per person fee.
Whether Southern Forest Watch will appeal the ruling hasn't been decided; the group was examining its options in the wake of the ruling Monday to grant the government summary judgment (attached below) in the case.
The challenge to the user fee, filed last summer, raised many issues. Among the charges was that the park staff concocted complaints about the existing backcountry reservation system, that minutes of public meetings were missing from the administrative record, and that some staff discussions of the matter were conducted on private, not government, email accounts. It also argued that federal regulations prohibited fees for backcountry campsites unless they come with "drinking water, access, road, refuse containers, toilet facilities ... (and) reasonable visitor protection," none of which exist, short of privies, in the park's backcountry.
More so, the lawsuit, contended that federal law prohibits the National Park Service at Great Smoky from charging "an entrance or standard amenity recreation fee ... unless fees are charged for entrance into that park on main highways and thoroughfares."
Southern Forest Watch also contended that "(A) 25 percent drop in backcountry camping (from 84,236 in 2012 to 62,863 the following year) since full implementation of this fee is dramatic evidence that this fee has impaired this generation's use of the Smoky Mountains ... "
Great Smoky officials maintained the fee was necessary to afford a better reservations system for backcountry campsites and to police the backcountry.
In his 59-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Thomas W. Phillips cast aside each point raised by Southern Forest Watch, at times saying the group's legal counsel didn't adequately buttress his arguments against the fee and the Park Service.
"Plaintiffs’ initial reply brief states that 'defendants’ pattern of consistent failure to follow the law in fulfilling their duties is the issue' with respect to these claims. This allegation does not state a valid claim for relief," the judge wrote at one point.
At another point Judge Phillips seemed to agree with Southern Forest Watch that a majority of the public did not support the implementation of the fee. Yet he also seemed to acknowledge the Park Service's longstanding position that public comment periods are not the equivalent of a vote on an issue.
"... the record contains evidence of substantial support for the BCF from the public, including GRSM employees. The support is not overwhelming, or even a majority of the responses received. Nevertheless, there is evidence of more than minimal support for the BCF proposal and 'support for the change' is all that the NPS public participation guidelines require," he wrote. "Neither the plaintiffs nor the defendants have provided any authority to suggest how such 'support' must be measured, nor has the Court found any. Accordingly, in the absence of any such guidance, the Court must reasonably interpret the guidelines as written and not 'substitute its judgment for that of the agency.'
"On this record and under the (Administrative Procedure Act's) narrow standard of review, the Court must conclude that the record does show 'support' for the BCF plan. Plaintiffs’ dispute of the characterization of the level of support does not mean that the facts themselves are in dispute."
The judge wrote that the passion in the case made it understandable to question whether the Park Service shouldn't have found a different solution for caring for the park's backcountry, but said that question was not one for him to answer.
"The plaintiffs and those opposed to the (backcountry fee) are understandably disappointed in (the park's decision to implement the fee) and could easily assume that defendants did not truly consider the public comments. After all, if so much of the public response was negative, how could the defendants have considered that input and still decided to proceed with the BCF?," he wrote. "Indeed, the passionate opposition to the BCF leads a reasonable mind to question whether another conclusion should have been reached, or why the Park management placed such emphasis on benefits for the 'less represented stakeholder group' rather than benefits for the frequent, local Park visitors.
"The legal question for this Court, however, is whether that decision was arbitrary or capricious."
In the end, he found, it was not.
Stories about:
Story Categories:
A copy of National Parks Traveler's financial statements may be obtained by sending a stamped, self-addressed envelope to: National Parks Traveler, P.O. Box 980452, Park City, Utah 84098. National Parks Traveler was formed in the state of Utah for the purpose of informing and educating about national parks and protected areas.
Residents of the following states may obtain a copy of our financial and additional information as stated below:
- Florida: A COPY OF THE OFFICIAL REGISTRATION AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION FOR NATIONAL PARKS TRAVELER, (REGISTRATION NO. CH 51659), MAY BE OBTAINED FROM THE DIVISION OF CONSUMER SERVICES BY CALLING 800-435-7352 OR VISITING THEIR WEBSITE. REGISTRATION DOES NOT IMPLY ENDORSEMENT, APPROVAL, OR RECOMMENDATION BY THE STATE.
- Georgia: A full and fair description of the programs and financial statement summary of National Parks Traveler is available upon request at the office and phone number indicated above.
- Maryland: Documents and information submitted under the Maryland Solicitations Act are also available, for the cost of postage and copies, from the Secretary of State, State House, Annapolis, MD 21401 (410-974-5534).
- North Carolina: Financial information about this organization and a copy of its license are available from the State Solicitation Licensing Branch at 888-830-4989 or 919-807-2214. The license is not an endorsement by the State.
- Pennsylvania: The official registration and financial information of National Parks Traveler may be obtained from the Pennsylvania Department of State by calling 800-732-0999. Registration does not imply endorsement.
- Virginia: Financial statements are available from the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, 102 Governor Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.
- Washington: National Parks Traveler is registered with Washington State’s Charities Program as required by law and additional information is available by calling 800-332-4483 or visiting www.sos.wa.gov/charities, or on file at Charities Division, Office of the Secretary of State, State of Washington, Olympia, WA 98504.
National parks and their natural resources belong to you. The National Parks Traveler works to ensure you know how these essential places are being cared for.
Sign Up For Our Weekly Newsletter
Unsubscribe at any time.
INN Member
The easiest way to explore RV-friendly National Park campgrounds.
Here’s the definitive guide to National Park System campgrounds where RVers can park their rigs.
Our app is packed with RVing- specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 national parks.
You’ll also find stories about RVing in the parks, tips helpful if you’ve just recently become an RVer, and useful planning suggestions.
Comments
This topic has generated lots of discussion over many months, and you're welcome to offer your opinions, pro and con, about the court's decision. However, you need to do so in a civil manner, minus personal attacks on other individuals or organizations on either side of the issue. If you posted a comment that's disappeared, just reword it in light of our Code of Conduct. Thanks, eds.
Thank you Traveler for the informative post. I am disappointed that the NPS is now able to charge fees for hiking and backpacking, In my own years in wilderness management I opposed these efforts strenuously. Thank you Southern Wilderness Watch for your efforts.
Thanks to NPT for your continuous coverage of this story. I wonder how many times a citizens group has challenged the NPS and won? We knew from the beginning it was a long shot. This article points out that public comments and sentiment have no bearing in the NPS policy. And we know the NPS cares little about what the public wants. If you read the ruling, Phillips states that the NPS employees favored the proposal. And in the end, the NPS employees got their way. If that doesn't represent what is wrong with the NPS, then nothing can further illustrate this point any better. From a member of the "less represented stakeholder group" referenced by the federal judge I am proud of what SFW has accomplished through this lawsuit including the outing of blackberry farms private trail system and land swap between a former TN governor from the NPS. Those are victories in this lawsuit.
Southern Forest Watch doesn't lay down because of one opinion. You haven't heard the last of this issue. Stay tuned!
It's one thing to challenge the NPS with rational valid arguments. It's another thing altogether to challenge the NPS, and then target, harass, and threaten employees and people that work in the park because they may have said that they approved of the fee, or that certain SFW claims weren't valid. SFW is an "organization" (and I use that term loosely) with little credibility, and obviously without a credible law firm or group of credible people behind them. There are many credible organizations out there that do challenge and win lawsuits against the government, but SFW is not going to be one of them. Obviously, just about every conspiracy theory they presented over the years in an ad nauseum manner was shot down and debunked, and it's not any surprise that their claims were dismissed. You can only be the "boy that cries wolf" for so long, before no one takes you seriously. Well, they long since past that point. This group only costs taxpayers money in lawyer fees, so they could debunk their conspiracies. This site gives way too much credibility to these groups, and that's why it does at times tend to feel like the Faux News of NPS related news.
Obviously, smokiesbackpacker didn't even read the judges ruling, because it pretty much stated that his conspiracies "of outing a land swap with a governor, and those of private trails being built and maintained in the park" were not true and rendered moot. Who cares. Into the dustbin of history this lawsuit goes.
Backcountry overnight stays were back up (above above 2012 numbers) to 86,153 in calendar year 2014 (http://bit.ly/1BIICiP) for Great Smoky Mountains National Park. More than 10,000 of those backcountry overnight stays were in the month of October 2014 versus October 2013 when the park was shutdown for 3 weeks (like the rest of the federal government) and only 3700 backcountry nights were logged.
Also in 2012 the main road from the park slid off the side of a mountain creating a 4 month period where people couldn't bypass through the main road in the park. It cut into spring, which is also another popular period. Of course, they only use the statistics but don't talk about the weather or the other factors that ensued that year. Last year was one of the 4th busiest on record, and backcountry usage was also up. Of course, they claim the "NPS is trumping" up the numbers. If that was the case, why didn't they trump up 2012 too? This year is off to a great start too. But, hey... more conspriacies, i'm sure will be brought out from those without an iota of credibility..
So basically to sum everything up. The NPS was very clever to write their own rules on how they don't have to accept the sentiment of the majority of the public, as long as they have some support. How ridiculous considering that one could generate some support for virtually anything. This ensures that no one can challenge them on any legal grounds and possibly win, because essentially they can do whatever they want. The public majority has no recourse whatsoever to deal directly with the NPS and get meaningful results unless the powers that be within decide from the good of their heart to listen. Until that changes it will be the same old story.
I think maybe this should be pursued from a different avenue. Like trying to get a change in how public comments are used to being on a majority basis. It certainly would be the fair way to go. But then again, im sure their rules would prevent anyone from challenging that either.
If local public sentiment drove EVERY single National Park rule and law, there would not be any National Parks and many of these areas would be ran like county parks. The parochial locals that are around many national parks tend to never understand that. If you read the ruling, the organic act is discussed in some detail.
Good job Southern Forest Watch thanks for bringing a fight to these type things. I feel this is only the beginning and what we really need are more groups of citizens who aren't afraid to push back on things like this.
Uh Delores........ you believe those numbers the NPS is putting out about back overnight stays being up?
My personal experience doesn't jive with the NPS numbers. Many folks are walking into smokies backcountry sites showing full only to find them almost empty. The NPS is trying to put lipstick on this pig proposal that cut backcountry usage by fudging data, yet again. When you own the system, you can manipulate it to your advantage. And that is obvious that this federal bureaucracy is doing that very thing.
Good luck on that angle. You obviously are missing the big picture and that is the court ruled that the NPS can have a backcountry system in the Smokies and that the system remains in place. Regardless if 10 people, or 5.6 trillion are in the backcountry at any given time, if those backcountry users want to stay overnight in a backcountry campground they have to pay a fee. The end.
That is true, the court has ruled they can have a backcountry fee system. But this is because they are allowed to write their own rules, and as long as they stay within those rules, right or wrong the public has no recourse to sucessfully have their own wishes taken into account.
True, the issue is now settled. But something seems very wrong when county commissions surrounding a park pass resolutions condemning a fee, most of the public comments are against.. no compromises are made, and they march blindly onward.
Yes they may be within their rules to do so, but is ignoring the wishes of most users really the correct route to take? I am of the belief it is not.
Actually, the NPS is a federal agency, and not under direction from what those County Commissioners in Blount County say. The Great Smoky Mountains National Park is federal land, which trumps county land. Blount counties resolution doesn't matter, and has no bearing on the organic act. And seriously, Sevier county also borders the park, and they didn't pass the resolution. Cocke county also borders the park, and didn't pass a resolution either. Many of the other counties in NC didn't bother passing resolutions too. So, that resolution is meaningless and has no effect on the use of the organic act which was passed by congress. I realize you folks see that Blount County resolution as some victory, but it holds little weight. And I also don't believe "Most of the public" was against it. Most of the negative comments were driven by the same 5 or 6 people and you guys acted like it was a "Vote Early, Vote Often" election. Once again, most national parks have backcountry fees, and entrance fees, so, the NPS wrote those rules a long time ago as they were directed to do by Congress. If anything, the Smokies have been an exception to the rules. Once again, Civics 101 - Federal > State > County.
Civics 101. The people are greater than all of those.
I have no personal stake in this issue, although I can sympathize both with those who oppose the fee and the park staff which was trying to find new source of funds. That said, I have to be a bit amused at the discussion about the "voices of the majority" being ignored on this issue.
According to the court's finding (link above) a total "of least 30 people attended" one of two open houses on the proposed fee, and "at least 40 people" attended the other. During the period for written comments, the NPS received a whopping 230 written comments on the proposal.
Most of those comments were against the proposed fee, but the reality seems to be that a rather small but very vocal group was opposed to this fee....and the rest of the world, including thousands of backcountry users (a reported 86,153 of them in 2014) apparently could care less about the issue.
If you believe SFW anecdotal's numbers rather than the park's number of users, and then seriously reduce the park's number's by 75%, you'd still have 21,000+ backcountry users in just one year who were silent, not to mention what we're told was an even larger number in recent years. Where were they when this proposal was being debated? Absent their groundswell of complaints, this seems to a bit of a tempest in a teapot.
I'd prefer the fee be abandoned, but the reality seems to be the "majority" of either the citizens in general or those directly affected by the fee don't seem to care.
Or had no clue it was happening or how to respond. .
The number of public comments, JTHomas was over 1000. And the NPS tried to keep all 856 of the negative from the public by various tactics, not the least of which was an attempted economic rape. See for yourself. http://www.knoxnews.com/news/gosmokies/avid-smokies-hiker-seeks-access-t...
The public comment period was shortened as to disenfranchise negative input and discount users. Having attended one of the sham open house meetings, there was no mechanism for counting folks or capturing their comments at the open house. It consisted of the Superintendent Ditmanson walking around and doing a sell job on the fee along with his cronies, none of which are still at Great Smoky Mtns anymore.
Voter turnout for elections is what? way under 50% in many cases? Just because a large number remain silent does not mean they could care less. Right or wrong it seems a lot of folks just don't feel like their say has any bearing ( which is evident in this case as true). An even bigger percentage i would say simply didn't know how to respond or even knew about the fee at all. In fact there was not a great deal of press about this at local levels much less on a greater scale. Even the judge seemed to agree this was not handled as well as it could have been.
If you didn't live within 50 miles of the park you probably never heard anything about the proposed fee. I'm guessing a good number of backcountry users fall into that category. As to "the Smokies have been an exception to the rules" that is one of the reasons we fought this fee. I believe there may be more parks that don't charge than do, but what really bothers us is that we have always been told that the park would be "forever free" for residents of TN/NC because so many had to give up their land. We should have looked at the Cherokees and realized what the feral government's word is worth. We are not going away ...
The judge also stated in his ruling that the comment period wasn't a "popular vote". I guess, i'm the only one that must have read that. And it was part of his decision. He actually reflected on this point quite a bit. As i've already stated, if local decision making was a key part to how NPs were ran, there would be no NPs.
Gary - reading your comments reminded me that you were going to discredit the claim of private trails cut by Bberry Farms via personal inspection, GPS, etc.. Did you make it out there? Curious what you found.
Kudos to NPS and the judge on this ruling. Those who use should pay for the privilege (NOT a right). Complaining about $4/night? Please!
The Great American Entitlement Syndrome is on full display here.
Reading the court document left the clear impression the judge was seriously underwhelmed about trail issues at Blackberry Farms or the Ace Gap Trail. If there was a smoking gun at Blackberry Farms, it was a BB gun, and the issues seem to have been resolved.
Information on pages 14 - 16 of the court document about the relocation of a section of the Ace Gap Trail leaves me wondering why this was an issue at all as part of this lawsuit. According to that document, a section of the trail left park land and crossed private property for about 500 feet, then returned to park land. The landowner, not unreasonably, requested that it be relocated off of his property, and the park hired a surveyor to determine where the boundary was located. The subsequent trail relocation first went through the standard NEPA review.
It doesn't matter who the landowner is in such cases. If it had been my property, I'd likely have had the same request. The park's approach, cited in the testimony, seems very reasonable: "...it has been the practice of the Park to voluntarily relocate sections of a trail from private land to Park land when a landowner requests such action and when there is reasonable evidence that the trail is indeed on private land ....this practice is based on a respect for private property and a landowner’s legitimate concerns about trespass, privacy, liability, and potential vandalism."
If the park had ignored any such request from an adjoining landowner to correct what amounted to trespass on private property, then there would be ample cause for complaint about the feds co-opting private land for public use. Sounds like the NPS did the right thing in this case, so where's the beef?
I don't believe the judge used the word "frivolous" to describe the Blackberry Farms and Ace Gap Trail "complaints," but that word sure came to my mind after reading the above document.
[AR 257]. Although there are no written notes or other documentation of these contacts, the presumption of regularity afforded to agencies leads the Court to conclude that defendants did what they claim to have done.
A federal judge trusts the NPS, a federal bureaucrat. RAT is the key word here.
It's ok JThomas that you ignore the public comments, though. Best to try and attack something else. Like Blackberry Farms, those kinds of elephants in the room are quite glaring. I suppose there are two types of people in the world. Folks who are concerned that a private resort can cut their own trails on NPS land, and those who don't.
The only information I have about the Blackberry Farms question is what's in the court document, and the judge didn't identify any lingering issues. You're correct, private parties should never have the right to "cut their own trail" in a park. Yes, it sounds like the resort did some unauthorized maintenance on a previously existing trail - which is much different from "cutting their own trails on NPS land" - and they put up some signs on NPS property that should not have been there. Should not have happened, but ironically, park visitors seem to have benefitted from a trail that was in better condition that it was under park maintenance. I believe some SFW folks are the same ones who complain about the park not getting trails reopened fast enough after storm damage :-)
It seems significant even the NPS staff wasn't sure exactly where the park boundary was in this area as it affects this trail until the ranger got a top quality GPS from the lands office. In heavily wooded and mountainout terrain, such boundary questions don't seem to be uncommon. The court did not find, as the SFW claimed, that the resort gave any impression they treated the trail as their "private" route.
The court seems satisfied the park staff resolved this issue by working with the adjacent landowner, which is how such problems should be handled if at all possible. It's interesting that some who criticize the park for not taking a heavier-handed approach in this situation have also been quick to criticize the staff as being too focused on "law enforcement" when it comes to other activities.
Blackberry Farms, as well as the trail relocation off of private property were either mere diversions to skirt from the main issue, or these guys are very lost in delusions of grandeur .... It's funny listening to these guys though. They lost the suit, and in the judges ruling they labeled in black and white that most of these falsehoods were inaccurate, and they still go on like their word is gospel.... [perhaps] they are just trying to pull the wool over peoples eyes to divert attention to their organization by pretending they have some vast understanding of the "wrongdoings between Superintendents and the kings and aristocrats" when it's evident it's just a bunch of powder puff fluff. (This comment has been edited slightly to remove disparaging language. Ed. staff)
Blackberry farms and Sundquist were not part of the suit. They were only examples of the gross mismanagement of the administration. I am no lawyer, but it is my understanding that if someone uses a road,path or highway across your property, and you do not object to it in a certain period of time then it is an acknowledged route. Of course in the case of the imperial feral government,and the former guvnah, what does the law have to do with anything? (This comment has been edited slightly to remove language intended to bait other participants. Ed. staff.)
Whatever. What if someone came on your property started drinking all your well water, and cutting down your trees for firewood? Would you like it?
Okay folks, we'll ask that you tone down the personal references, and stick to the primary subject at hand. Kurt has enlisted some volunteer help with moderation, so we'll do our best to keep things civil and focused. Several recent comments have been edited, and one unpublished. If you feel we're being too restrictive, our apologies, but we're doing our best to encourage a responsible conversation.
So, am I allowed to say God bless America?
There is no campsite, as far as I know no "well",and probably no credible claims of hikers cutting down trees on the former guvnah's property.
For the continual "Blackberry Farms Deniers" out there. Here is a quote and newslink.
In a letter dated June 13, 2014 from Chief Ranger Clayton Jordan to Blackberry Farm Executive Vice President Matt Alexander, it is clear the park service has been aware of trails maintained by Blackberry Farms since 2009.
http://wate.membercenter.worldnow.com/story/26631327/watchdog-group-alle...
Having been there and seen it myself, I still anxiously await the oft touted scouting report we have all been hearing about for over a year now to prove it doesn't exist.
Ohh back to the diversionary rhetoric, I see. Since you realize the backcountry permit system is here to stay, you have to resort to other tactics hoping it sticks. The boundary trail is an old park trail built by the CCC in the 30s. Maps showing the old trail are in existence. Trying to state an old trail that was cut by the CCC, and only moderately maintained by property owners bordering the park by calling it a "brand new trail blazed by blackberry farms so that they can run ATV's and horses through it making it exclusive to kings and artistocrats" was unfounded and untrue, just like the report stated. Good luck with that angle. I think the only ones that buy into that are SFW.
So, I guess it is OK to"moderately maintain" old trails if you are a "property owner" aligned with a flannel shirt wearing senator. Who knew? I feel pretty sure I would be hauled into court if I had property adjacent to the park and started cutting blow downs on old trails. It's good to be/know the king.
There's no kings involved, fluffer. If you guys are so concerned about manways, then why do so many of you hike them, or even go off trail? Most of us that use the backcountry do use older decommissioned trails (called manways in the south). Some people dedicate a lot of their hiking time doing just that. So let's cut to the chase - really this is just a diversionary tactic, because Lamar Alexander once was tied with BBF, and you folks see that as "pure evil" and so there has to be some sort of heinous conspiracy, right? Kind of ironic that Lamar supports wilderness in Tennessee, and has pushed another bill trying to get more wilderness in our state, but hey.
Yet, you somehow think this was tied into the backcountry fee? How? I don't even see the connection. Can you explain what this has to do with anything related to the fee, fluffer? If anything, this is just a diversionary tactic on SFW part. This is a seperate issue altogether, and it's shown that the NPS has not allowed BBF to have their own 'private trails" in the park. In fact, that claim is almost laughable, and i'm sure the judge was like "seriously, I have to waste my time ruling on this". You guys are really backpeddling at this point. This issue has gone from Lamar Alexander demanding that BBF create new trails into the park that is exclusive only to their resort, to simply maintaing downed trees on an old manway trail. I could hear him now with the executive order, "DUDE, get some crews out there and cut me a new trail through MY park." to just someone, perhaps (but more than likely) at BBF mainting an older manway by cutting away downed trees that fell on the trail (and trust me, this isn't the only manway i've seen with downed trees cut or pushed aside). So, the goalposts have shifted a lot here. It's gone from Kings and Aristocrats riding ATV's (impossible to do by the way) along the newly cut trail that BBF supposedly recently cut through the park over the last few years (this was a NPT headline for an article, by the way, which will forever taint this site in my book), to just someone at BBF maintaining an old manway (called the Boundary trail in maps that predate 1940) that has bordered their property for almost a century, and was decommissioned sometime back in the late 70s to early 80s.
And again, what does this have to do with the BCF? NOTHING! Not a single thing. It's just a diversionary tactic from SFW looking for any angle to somehow try and make Ditminson look heinous, when in reality, the SFW folks more than likely owe him an appology for all the false accusations and BS tactics that SFW threw at him over the years.
To fee or not to fee? Ah, that is the question!
Let's get some cultural perspective into this. Americans don't like fees. Our forebears threw tea in Boston Harbor, and you people are slinging mud about this "tax" with equal furor. You don't like the government (the fee collector) because you believe (know) that government is just about perpetuating itself.
Here in Washington State, our gas tax is about to go up 12 cents a gallon, and the bars are filled with people protesting "government." Forget that those protesting the loudest own the heaviest vehicles in the neighborhood doing the greatest damage to our public roads. How do they think those roads get repaired? But of course, a previous generation sold those roads by calling them "freeways." Free? Then I want it free!
I say raise the price at the gate and collect no backcountry fees. After all, the people doing the greatest damage to the park are the people driving in. But yes, everyone using the backcountry would have to register so the Park Service would know where they are.
No doubt, the Park Service spends the bulk of its budget maintaining and policing roads. Backcountry maintenance is in the toilet in the vast majority of our parks. Now, write that letter to your "Congressperson" and she what she has to say. In so many words, mine have told me to take a hike--and pay the fee. After all, the automobile is still KING. And no, Hillary Clinton will never change that. After all, she is hoping to be QUEEN.
Well said, Alfred.
Sometimes it's hard to hear around here over a phenomena we Southerners call a "red eyed hissy fit".
It is interesting that other news outlets have deemed the Blackberry Farm private trail system as newsworthy enough to take a camera crew a do a lead video story of the event. (Of course that means they must not be credible news outlets as well:) If you watch this from WATE channel 6 in Knoxville, you can see that the reporter clearly demonstrates that the private resort with ties to Sen Lamar Alexander have clear cut hundreds of trees within the GRSM. What you won't see in the video is the GSMA refuting the obvious.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFIPDYW1ba0
I didn't see anything in that video about clear cutting... or that the trail was "exclusive to the resort". Am I missing something? That journalist also never talked about the history of the trail and left out a lot of somewhat pertinent information (ie that this trail was created in the 1930's) and almost the entire thing borders BBF property. She obviously didn't do thorough research, kind of like SFW. But, I know you like to be in the media, Johnny. It helps boost that very fragile ego of yours.
And seriously, you look a little foolish in that video now that all the information is out, but you obviously don't see it. Anyway, this circular logic cycle you like to get into is very old. You lost, your conspiracies are shot, and you just look a little insane the longer you keep running with this.
Public watchdog groups can perform an invaluable service in society, but their value depends in large measure upon their credibility. Unfortunately, as this discussion unfolds, SFW is increasingly falling short in that regard.
I've watched the video cited above, and sadly, it's a great example of a reporter with little apparent knowledge about natural resources being given a heavy dose of misinformation. The post above says "the reporter clearly demonstrates that the private resort with ties to Sen Lamar Alexander have clear cut hundreds of trees within the GRSM."
Well, no she didn't. Here's one of many very similar definitions of "clear cut": "Clearcutting means the felling and removal of all trees from a given tract of forest."
When the average person – or a resource professional—hears the word "clearcutting" they have a mental picture of serious ecological changes - a sizeable piece of ground being stripped clean of every standing tree. No evidence in the news video or elsewhere that this has occurred, but that's the mental image SFW wants to leave with the public about this situation.
Sorry folks, but that's a serious misrepresentation of the facts, and cutting some sections out of some dead and down trees that have fallen across a previously existing trail is NOT clear cutting by any reasonable definition. Were "hundreds" of such dead trees cut to allow hiker access? Sure couldn't tell that from the video. Even if they were cut over a length of trail, where's the ecological damage?
The SFW spokesperson also continues to compare the Blackberry situation to someone going into totally undisturbed terrain in the park and "cutting a trail" where one never existed before. That wording, too, is intended to create a mental image of activity which would be absolutely wrong and would demand serious legal action.
Again, that's not what happened here, and the court certainly didn't buy that claim in the recent case. I certainly couldn't see any "resource damage" from the trail work shown in the video. Should unauthorized maintenance of an abandoned trail be done by anyone in a park? No, but such work is light years away from the picture being painted by SFW – and the court was clearly satisfied that the park has taken appropriate action to deal with it.
Just one more example of lack of accuracy by this group: Fluffybunny claims above that "Blackberry farms and Sundquist were not part of the suit." Sorry, not true. See page 54 of the court document which says " Count II of the Amended Complaint concerns the defendants’ alleged grant of a license to former Governor Sundquist by relocating a portion of the Ace Gap Trail from his property and the alleged grant of a license to Blackberry Farm which allows the exclusive use of Park trails by Blackberry Farm guests..."
The court, incidentially, rejected those claims by SFW.
Despite some great PR spin, statements by this group just don't pass any reasonable test of credibility.
Ok, folks, we're going to close this one down. We just don't have the time to police the bickering between local parties, and it's not benefiting the readership as a whole.